[lbo-talk] Remarkably small delegate gain for Clinton

[Bill Hoffman]

In the aftermath of the confusion at the caucuses, many here in Texas are
definitely in favor of abandoning them in favor of a straight-up primary.
The resistance comes from the party faithful themselves, largely because the
goals of parties tend to be securing and holding power, rather than to
translate the "popular will" (whatever that might be these days, or at the
moment) into policy. If anything, because of the attention the local media
gave to the peculiarities of the"two step" system, far more people
participated than would otherwise be the case, diluting the impact of the
party insiders and hardcore.  The "zealots," of course, were out in force
this time. "Points of order" and procedural issues were being raised at the
caucus I attended well before everyone had signed in with their
preferences...apparently a "roll call" can be called at any time, and the
"votes" of those not present can be challenged. It's absurdly complex, but
some people seemed to feel they were participating in something more
"important" than simply a primary.

It's doubtful that the process, in this instance, seriously "negated" the
"popular will" - HRC took most of the 126 "straight" delegates, BHO looks to
get most of the 67 caucus delegates, and the polls before the election
indicated nearly equal support from likely voters. Only the "superdelegates"
can negate anybody's will at this point in the game.

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:25 AM, B. <docile_body at yahoo.com> wrote:


> Yeah. Remember the Republican guys banging on the
> doors in Florida on TV during the Bush/Gore vote
> recount in 2000? It is like that.
>
> Since the caucus vote is also a second trip out (after
> voting the 1st time earlier that day) starting at 7:30
> PM at night, and potentially a lengthy process going
> into the night, it attracts, like I said, the real
> political nerds, political junkies, people who have no
> lives except to read political blogs all day, people
> draped in buttons -- wingnut type people, the real
> loons and crazed fanatics who somehow have the time
> and energy to do this. Basically it is a system that
> can negate to a serious degree what the popular will
> had decided at primary polling locations.
>
> It's stupid and should be done away with.
>
> -B.
>
>
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> "And the scenes that Fox described at those places
> sounded insane - massively overcrowded, insufficient
> numbers of ballots, crazed mobs,  etc. Weird state,
> Texas."
>
>
>
> B. wrote:
>
> "Obamaniacs could compensate for that by using their
> insane zeal to have them go out yet again to vote at
> precinct HQs, which are combative, zealot-filled
> places.
>
>
>  ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>